Are COVID-19 patients given adequate instructions about toothbrush hygiene? A cross-sectional study.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate toothbrush hygienic practices, whether subjects with a positive COVID-19 test received instructions about toothbrush hygiene, and to determine if carriers of SARS CoV-2 were assigned separate bathrooms during home isolation.

Methods: Data were collected by an anonymous online questionnaire. Variables of interest included toothbrush hygiene practices, receiving instructions on toothbrush handling if tested positive for COVID-19, and being assigned separate bathrooms during home isolation.

Public Trust in Dentists among Arabic Populations.

Objective: To investigate public trust in dentists, fear of dentists, factors related to trust, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the trust in dentists.

Materials And Methods: We used an Arabic online anonymous survey to collect data from a random population of 838 adults to investigate public trust in dentists, the factors they perceive to affect trust, their perception of key factors in the dentist-patient relationship, fear of dentists, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the level of their trust in the dentists.

Results: Eight hundred thirty-eight subjects with a mean age of 28.

Dentists' Habits of Antibiotic Prescribing May be Influenced by Patient Requests for Prescriptions.

Objective: This study evaluates dentists' antibiotic prescribing habits and the frequency of facing patient pressure for prescriptions.

Methods: An online anonymous survey was used to collect data on antibiotic prescribing practices, including prescribing unnecessary antibiotics if requested by patients.

Results: The study population included 345 dentists; 227 (65.

Disinfection of dental impressions: knowledge and practice among dental technicians.

Dental impressions are a common source for transmission of infection between dental clinics and dental labs. Dental impressions can be cross-contaminated by patient's saliva and blood, which then cross-infect the dental casts poured from the impressions. To evaluate the current practices of disinfection of dental impressions and their protocols and to assess the knowledge of cross-infection control among dental technicians in Jordan.

Rewarding the quantity of peer review could harm biomedical research.

Voluntary peer review is generally provided by researchers as a duty or service to their disciplines. They commit their expertise, knowledge and time freely without expecting rewards or compensation. Peer review can be perceived as a reciprocal mission that aims to safeguard the quality of publications by helping authors improve their manuscripts.

Responsible Conduct of Human Subjects Research in Islamic Communities.

In order to increase understanding of the ethical implications of biomedical, behavioral and clinical research, the Fogarty International Center, part of the United States National Institutes of Health, established an International Research Ethics Education and Curriculum Development Award (R25) to support programs in low- and middle-income countries. To develop research ethics expertise in Jordan, the University of California San Diego fellowship program in collaboration with Jordan University of Science and Technology provides courses that enable participants to develop skills in varied research ethics topics, including research with human subjects. The program provides a master's level curriculum, including practicum experiences.

Is Biomedical Research Protected from Predatory Reviewers?

Authors endure considerable hardship carrying out biomedical research, from generating ideas to completing their manuscripts and submitting their findings and data (as is increasingly required) to a journal. When researchers submit to journals, they entrust their findings and ideas to editors and peer reviewers who are expected to respect the confidentiality of peer review. Inherent trust in peer review is built on the ethical conduct of authors, editors and reviewers, and on the respect of this confidentiality.

Establishing Sensible and Practical Guidelines for Desk Rejections.

Publishing has become, in several respects, more challenging in recent years. Academics are faced with evolving ethics that appear to be more stringent in a bid to reduce scientific fraud, the emergence of science watchdogs that are now scrutinizing the published literature with critical eyes to hold academics, editors and publishers more accountable, and a barrage of checks and balances that are required between when a paper is submitted and eventually accepted, to ensure quality control. Scientists are often under increasing pressure to produce papers in an increasingly stringent publishing environment.

Should Authors be Requested to Suggest Peer Reviewers?

As part of a continuous process to explore the factors that might weaken or corrupt traditional peer review, in this paper, we query the ethics, fairness and validity of the request, by editors, of authors to suggest peer reviewers during the submission process. One of the reasons for the current crisis in science pertains to a loss in trust as a result of a flawed peer review which is by nature biased unless it is open peer review. As we indicate, the fact that some editors and journals rely on authors' suggestions in terms of who should peer review their paper already instills a potential way to abuse the trust of the submission and publishing system.

Fortifying the Corrective Nature of Post-publication Peer Review: Identifying Weaknesses, Use of Journal Clubs, and Rewarding Conscientious Behavior.

Most departments in any field of science that have a sound academic basis have discussion groups or journal clubs in which pertinent and relevant literature is frequently discussed, as a group. This paper shows how such discussions could help to fortify the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement, and could thus fortify the value of traditional peer review, if their content and conclusions were made known to the wider academic community. Recently, there are some tools available for making PPPR viable, either as signed (PubMed Commons) or anonymous comments (PubPeer), or in a hybrid format (Publons).

How are Editors Selected, Recruited and Approved?

The editors of scholarly journals have a duty to uphold and promote the highest standards of ethical conduct of research. They also have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the literature, and to promote transparency and honesty in reporting research findings. In the process of screening manuscripts they receive for possible publication, editors have the obligation to report infractions to the institutions of offending authors, and request an investigation.